Definition of Reality

They would have no idea what they were falling off of.

If primitive man did not have the word planet, nor the concept of planet, then planets could not have existed to them.

How do we know the real from the apparent?

.
(By the way, what would it mean for knowledge to come before truth? In what sense of before? Temporally? Spatially? I don't think it means anything).

I agree. Certainty does seem a better term.

Meno: And how are you going to search for it when you don't know at all what it is, Socrates? Which of all the things you don't know will you set up as target for your search? And even if you actually come across it, how will you know that it is that thing which you don't know?'

In other words, if you don't know any of the attributes, properties, and/or other descriptive markers of any kind that help signify what something is (physical or otherwise), you won't recognize it, even if you actually come across it. And, as consequence, if the converse is true, and you do know the attributes, properties and/or other descriptive markers of this thing, then you shouldn't need to seek it out at all. The result of this line of thinking is that, in either instance, there is no point trying to gain that "something"; in the case of Plato's aforementioned work, there is no point in seeking knowledge.

Socrates' response is to develop his theory of anamnesis. He suggests that the soul is immortal, and repeatedly incarnated; knowledge is actually in the soul from eternity (86b), but each time the soul is incarnated its knowledge is forgotten in the shock of birth. What one perceives to be learning, then, is actually the recovery of what one has forgotten. (Once it has been brought back it is true belief, to be turned into genuine knowledge by understanding.) And thus Socrates (and Plato) sees himself, not as a teacher, but as a midwife, aiding with the birth of knowledge that was already there in the student.

If primitive man did not have the word planet, nor the concept of planet, then planets could not have existed to them.

It seems like a rather basic concept in my opinion.

... to that, I don't have an answer ... if reductionism is true, then the first principles of physics are the "first science"; if not, then the first principles of physics may not be the only first principles of science ...

There is an oft-told anecdote, which is related in The Fatal Impact, by Alan Moorehead. It quotes from the logs of Joseph Banks, who was the chief scientist on board the Endeavour when it sailed into Botany Bay in January 1788, to establish the colony of Australia.

The Endeavour sailed into Botany Bay, which is an almost perfectly circular bay of about 7 miles diameter. They dropped anchor some distance from shore , I think it was about 1,000 yards, but within sight of some indigenous peoples who were mending their nets on a sandbank.

Banks noted with interest that the natives paid no attention at all to the Endeavour. The crew watched them through long glasses for some hours. Then finally a long boat was winched down, and made its way towards the group. As soon as the long boat was separated from the Endeavour, there was a big commotion on the shore. The warriors were all gesticulating and waving their spears at the boat and straight away sent out a canoe to intercept it.

Thus began the long and very sad story of the decimation of the Australian native tribes by the European settlers. Banks wrote in his diary that he was curious as to why the appearance of the Endeavour had not drawn the least attention.

I believe that it was because they didn't notice it. And the reason they didn't notice it was because it was completely outside their reality. Their minds could not assimilate or recognise the Endeavour, even when it was in plain sight, so they didn't actually see it.

This can't be proven, of course. It is speculative. But it makes a point about reality.

I wonder what they would make of the sudden stops . . .


Perhaps you mean that the concept of planets did not exist to them. Surely, planets existed. Otherwise, where were the caves they lived in?

That is true of course. But how does that mean that planets did not exist? It doesn't. To say that planets did not exist to them only means that they did not believe there were planets. But, so what? Planets existed whether or not they believed planets existed. In the Middle Ages, people did not have the concept of germs. So what? They still got infections.

I wonder what they would make of the sudden stops . . .


Perhaps you mean that the concept of planets did not exist to them. Surely, planets existed. Otherwise, where were the caves they lived in?

... I think what Tock (or is it Tick? ) is taking exception to may only be a result of your word choice ... for example in "if you insist that the cliff exists in the reality of the blind people", it can be construed that you are saying that Reality is precisely the perception of the blind people ... if that's not what you mean, then perhaps a phrasing such as "if you insist that the cliff exists in the perceived reality of the blind people" might help ...

This is a good point. I think the crux is what we mean by "exist." Because we are now conscious, we can infer that the planets were here before consciousness of them was. But their past existence (in any human sense of the word) is still arguably dependent on our current existence. This touches the issue of time. We really can't think outside the box of human cognition.
This reminds me of the Hegel / Marx conflict. Human reality is largely revealed by discourse. This discourse has given us the mental-model of non-human reality that human's and their discourse have emerged from. Which came first, the chicken or the egg? Isn't a Moebius strip an appropriate symbol here?

I find it fascinating how some people are unable to understand reality in any terms besides their own.

Germs did not exist in the Middle Ages. They called it plagues from God. Maybe one day science will discover that germs are in reality tiny aliens from another planet. In which case they will stop being called germs, and people will attribute their sickness to aliens. This would not mean that our current reality that includes germs is wrong, just different.

Its a language game really, and if the language doesn't exist then the concept can't exist.

What are planets other than concepts? You have never seen the whole of a planet, only pictures of one. If it weren't for scientists, you wouldn't even have enough understanding of planets to claim they exist.

Concepts change over time, therefore, reality changes over time.

I agree with all of this. Still, I can understand how some find it suspicious. The Enlightenment was arguably founded on universalism. Is that the faith of the Enlightenment? One reality/truth? A mono-realism to replace an obsolete monotheism? Does the prestige of technology make us reluctant to question its foundations? I don't think linguistic philosophy is a threat. I doubt the species will abandon its technical expertise/ideology.

I find it fascinating how some people are unable to understand reality in any terms besides their own.

Germs did not exist in the Middle Ages. They called it plagues from God. Maybe one day science will discover that germs are in reality tiny aliens from another planet. In which case they will stop being called germs, and people will attribute their sickness to aliens. This would not mean that our current reality that includes germs is wrong, just different.

Its a language game really, and if the language doesn't exist then the concept can't exist.

---------- Post added 02-11-2010 at 08:37 PM ----------



What are planets other than concepts? You have never seen the whole of a planet, only pictures of one. If it weren't for scientists, you wouldn't even have enough understanding of planets to claim they exist.

Concepts change over time, therefore, reality changes over time.

---------- Post added 02-11-2010 at 08:41 PM ----------



I agree, but if i change the words, it would change the point I'm trying to make.

Some people have a problem with thinking of reality as something that can change, but as I see it, reality is a constantly changing process. Which is why discussions like these take place. I don't see any difference between perceived reality and reality because any reality is perceived. To suggest only one actual reality exists would entail that there is one grand perceiver of all, which could be God, but I don't envision God as something that perceives as such.

I agree with all of this. Still, I can understand how some find it suspicious. The Enlightenment was arguably founded on universalism. Is that the faith of the Enlightenment? One reality/truth? A mono-realism to replace an obsolete monotheism? Does the prestige of technology make us reluctant to question its foundations? I don't think linguistic philosophy is a threat. I doubt the species will abandon its technical expertise/ideology.

Good point. But if reductionism is made of words, wouldn't these words be prior to what reductionism addresses? I realize you weren't committing to any particular view. It's just a question in relation to your post.

It seems to me that physics is founded on notions such as causality and objectivity. I suppose it's old territory, but consciousness seems to make physics possible in the first place. Also, there's its mathematical foundation. I guess I'm just emphasizing what seems to me to be an implicit metaphysics grounding physics, as well as the trouble with explaining the role of the scientist in science. (Kant, etc.)

I don't see any difference between perceived reality and reality because any reality is perceived. To suggest only one actual reality exists would entail that there is one grand perceiver of all ...

What do you mean germs did not exist in the Middle Ages because there was no word "germs". Since when does the existence of something depend on whether there is a word for that something? What the hell do you think caused the plague if not germs?

Planets are not concepts. Planets are planets, and concept are concepts. "Everything is what it is, and not another thing" Joseph Butler. If planets were concepts they would be in the head. But planets are not in the head. Therefore, planets are not concepts. Mars orbits the Sun. Concepts do not orbit anything.

---------- Post added 02-11-2010 at 09:59 PM ----------



You agree there were no germs in the Middle Ages? When do you think germs began to exist, then? And what the hell do you think caused infections in the Middle Ages?

In the perceived reality of the Middle Ages, germs did not exist, but plagues from God existed. What I think he is saying is that a germ is only a concept because if germs turn out to be tiny aliens then the concept of a germ is symbolic for the effects of the tiny aliens, just as plagues from God is a symbol for the effects of germs. Does that make sense?